HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (10) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Juergens, L. A. Articles by Hinman, H. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Juergens, L. A. Articles by Hinman, H. R. Agricola Articles by Juergens, L. A. Articles by Hinman, H. R. Related Collections Economics Dryland Cropping Systems Wheat Other Oil Crops Soil Conservation

PRODUCTION PAPER

Economics of Alternative No-Till Spring Crop Rotations in Washington's Wheat–Fallow Region

^a Dep. of Agric. and Resour. Econ., Hulbert Hall 101, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164-6210
^b Dep. of Crop and Soil Sci., Washington State Univ., Dryland Res. Stn., Lind, WA 99341

^* Corresponding author (dlyoung{at}wsu.edu).

Received for publication January 6, 2003.

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Winter wheat [Triticum aestivum L.] (WW)–summer fallow (SF) is the dominant cropping system in the low-precipitation (<300 mm annual) region of the inland Pacific Northwest (PNW), USA. Intensive tillage during SF often leaves soil vulnerable to wind erosion. While no-till cropping is well known for wind erosion control benefits, previous research in the inland PNW showed that annual no-till hard red spring wheat (HRSW) trailed WW–SF in profitability by $113 ha^–1 yr^–1. Our objective was to assess the agronomic and economic feasibility of alternative no-till spring grain and oilseed rotations in a 5-yr experiment near Ritzville, WA. Spring crops were soft white wheat (SW), barley [Hordeum vulgare L.] (SB) yellow mustard [Brassica hirta Moench] (YM), and safflower [Carthamus tinctorius L.] (SAF) grown in three rotation sequences. Net returns from WW–SF on 10 neighboring farms during the 5-yr period averaged $21.52 ha^–1 yr^–1. The most profitable no-till spring cropping sequence was continuous SW, which averaged net returns of $12.11 ha^–1 yr^–1, equivalent to WW–SF and much more competitive than previous HRSW results. No-till SW–SB and a 4-yr rotation of SAF–YM–SW–SW averaged –$12.10 and –$31.45 ha^–1 yr^–1, respectively. Although all no-till spring crop rotations had higher annual income variability than WW–SF, positive net returns for continuous SW is the first economic good news for continuous annual cropping using no-till in the low-precipitation region of the inland PNW.

Abbreviations: HRSW, hard red spring wheat • PNW, Pacific Northwest • SAF, safflower • SB, spring barley • SD, standard deviation • SF, summer fallow • SW, soft white spring wheat • WW, winter wheat • YM, yellow mustard

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
POTENTIAL FOR ECONOMIC and environmental benefits is a driving force in the gradual shift by dryland farmers to adopt reduced-till and no-till farming methods. Despite several associated environmental problems, WW–SF is the dominant cropping system in the low-precipitation zone of the inland PNW because it provides agronomic and economic advantages (Leggett et al., 1974). Farmers and bankers appreciate time-proven grain yield and income stability of WW–SF and the system's relatively uniform seasonal demands on farm machinery and labor.

Environmental disadvantages of WW–SF include recurrent wind erosion, especially during drought cycles when straw production is low. Summer-fallowed fields in south-central Washington were reported to have lost 4 to 10 cm (240–600 Mg ha^–1) of topsoil from wind erosion in one season (Papendick, 1996). In addition to degrading soil, blowing dust from SF also inflicts substantial off-site damage on human respiratory health, traffic accidents, and cleanup costs (Upadhyay et al., 2003). Research in the PNW and elsewhere has shown that no-till cropping controls soil erosion, builds soil quality, and reduces machinery wear and fuel consumption compared with tillage-based systems. More diverse cropping systems than WW–SF also offer opportunities for weed, disease, and insect control (Papendick and Parr, 1996; Withers et al., 1999).

Nationwide, the advantages of annual cropping in semiarid regions have led to substantial adoption. Farmers in the USA reduced SF acreage by 43% from 1964 to 1997, with the largest reductions in the Great Plains (Smith and Young, 2000). In 2000, about 36% of total U.S. cropland was in conservation till or no-till whereas in Washington State, it was only 23% (CTIC, 2001). In east-central Washington and north-central Oregon, where annual precipitation ranges from 150 to 300 mm and WW–SF cropping is practiced on 1.5 million ha, even minimum tillage is rare. In Adams County, WA, where this study is located, conservation tillage is practiced on only 17% of the cropland (CTIC, 2001).

Farmers in the WW–SF region are slow to adopt conservation tillage SF despite conclusive research showing environmental benefits with no agronomic (Schillinger, 2001) or economic (Janosky et al., 2002) disadvantages compared with intensive tillage SF. Concerns about economic risk and profitability appear to be a barrier to adoption of reduced-tillage systems (Juergens et al., 2001).

Few farmers in the PNW low-precipitation region practice continuous annual cropping (CTIC, 2001). Two recent multiyear experiments in Washington compared profitability of no-till HRSW in 150-mm (Benton County) and 290-mm (Adams County) precipitation zones. In Benton County, 1997–2002 net returns over total costs before government farm payments averaged –$109 ha^–1 yr^–1 for annual no-till HRSW and –$14 ha^–1 yr^–1 for WW–SF (Young, 2002a). In Adams County from 1996–2002, the values were –$122 ha^–1 yr^–1 for HRSW compared with $9 ha^–1 yr^–1 for WW–SF (Young, 2002b). The average shortfall of –$113 ha^–1 yr^–1 translates into –$181000 yr^–1 for a typical 1600-ha farm in the region. The WW–SF system was not only more profitable than annual HRSW in both studies, but also demonstrated less annual income risk.

Given the unpromising economic comparison of annual no-till HRSW with WW–SF, a need clearly exists for alternative cropping systems that offer greater economic viability. The objective of this study was to evaluate the economic performance of three annual spring cropping systems involving SW, SB, YM, and SAF and compare them with the WW–SF system practiced on neighboring farms.

	MATERIALS AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Field Layout and Treatments
A 5-yr study of no-till annual spring cropping systems was conducted from 1997 to 2001 at the Ron Jirava farm near Ritzville, Adams County, WA. Cropping systems were (i) a 4-yr SAF–YM–SW–SW rotation, (ii) a 2-yr SW–SB rotation, and (iii) continuous SW. The experiment covered 8 ha, and the soil is a uniform Ritzville silt loam (coarse-silty, mixed, mesic Calcidic Haploxeroll). Soil depth is >2 m, with no restrictive layers, and slopes are <1%. Average annual precipitation at the site is 290 mm. The field where the experiment was established had been planted to spring wheat in 1996 following decades of WW–SF.

Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Each crop in all rotations occurred each year in 20- by 150-m plots, making a total of 28 plots. During the first 3 yr (1997, 1998, and 1999), all plots were planted and fertilized in one-pass directly into the undisturbed soil and residue left by the previous crop using the grower's Flexi-Coil 6000 air-delivery no-till drill equipped with Barton II dual-disk openers on 19-cm spacing for simultaneous and precision placement of seed and fertilizer in the same row. In 2000 and 2001, all plots were planted and fertilized in one-pass using a custom-built no-till drill equipped with Cross-Slot notched-coulter openers on 20-cm spacing for simultaneous and precision placement of seed and fertilizer in the same row. Both openers are low-disturbance and place fertilizer beneath and slightly to one side of the seed. Glyphosate herbicide [N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine] was applied 2 to 4 wk before planting at 0.43 kg acid equivalent (a.e.) ha^–1 to control weeds and disease green bridge (Smiley et al., 1992). Seeding rate averaged across years was 78, 78, 23, and 10 kg ha^–1 for SW, SB, SAF, and YM, respectively. Solution 32 (NH₄NO₃ + urea) provided the base for liquid fertilizer to supply an average of 40, 11, and 17 kg ha^–1 N, P (aqueous solution of NH₄H₂PO₄), and S [aqueous solution of (NH₄)₂S₂O₃], respectively. The quantity of available soil water and residual N, P, and S was measured in all rotations each spring to determine fertilizer needs based on a yield goal. Between the tillering and jointing phase of growth of SW and SB, in-crop broadleaf weeds were controlled with 0.84 kg a.e. ha^–1 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) + 0.9 x 10^–2 L active ingredient (a.i.) ha^–1 Harmony Extra (50% thifensulfuron {3-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-2-thiophenecarboxylic acid} + 25% tribenuron {2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)methylamino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acid}). In-crop herbicides were not used in SAF or YM plots as no legally labeled broadleaf weed herbicides were available for these crops in Washington.

All plots were harvested with a commercial-size combine, and grain yield was determined on site by auguring grain into a weigh wagon. When Russian thistle (Salsola iberica Sennen and Pau) and other broadleaf weeds were present at time of harvest in cereals (1999 and 2001 only) and broadleaf crops (all years), 0.42 kg a.i. ha^–1 paraquat (1,1'-dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridinium) + 0.21 kg a.i. ha^–1 diuron [N'-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N,N-dimethylurea] was applied 7 to 10 d after harvest to prevent seed production and halt soil water use by these weeds. A complete list of field operations and timing for each operation throughout the study is shown in Table 1.

Total cost of production was estimated using standard enterprise budgets that identify fixed and variable costs. For a given land and machinery base, fixed costs do not vary with number of hectares planted. Machinery fixed costs are depreciation, interest, taxes, housing, and insurance. Land fixed costs include property taxes and net land rent. Net rent is money paid for rented land or rental income foregone for using owned land. In the study region, net rent is based on the prevailing one-third landlord and two-thirds tenant crop share with the landlord also paying land taxes and one-third of fertilizer expense. Other fixed costs include farm-wide insurance, legal/accounting services, and overhead expenses.

Variable costs include any costs that vary proportionately with the area planted. Machinery repair, fuel, labor, custom hire of services, seed, fertilizer, pesticides, and crop insurance are typical variable costs. The actual operations and input rates for the 5-yr experiment were used in computing variable costs.

Soft white wheat and feed barley prices used in this analysis are $123.46 and $92.70 Mg^–1, respectively. These are the regional average 1997–2001 farm-gate prices (Washington Agric. Stat. Serv., 2001). Safflower and YM price of $264.55 Mg^–1 is the average contract price that regional farmers received during the period.

Net returns include only market returns, excluding government payments or crop insurance indemnities. Although government payments have been and are a very important source of farm income, our study compared rank in market profitability of different rotations, not total farm income. Adding recent predetermined government payments will not change the economic ranking of different treatments. Inclusion of government payments requires assumptions on historic grain yields and base hectarage of individual representative farms. These histories vary from farm to farm, and government programs vary substantially annually and from farm bill to farm bill. Readers may add government payments to base market returns reported here consistent with their particular assumptions if desired.

Net return per rotational hectare is used to correctly measure profitability of different crop rotations. Net returns for each crop year in the rotation are summed and divided by the number of years in the rotation, thereby standardizing all rotations to a 1.0-ha basis. For example, a rotational hectare of WW–SF includes 0.5 ha of WW and 0.5 ha of fallow. This approach also correctly portrays annual income of farmers who commonly allocate 1/n of their land to each crop in an n-year rotation. This annual diversification also reduces annual income risk by growing a portfolio of crops and permits more efficient use of machinery and labor over time.

Safflower was discontinued from the 4-yr rotation in 2001, but the remaining crops of the original 4-yr rotation were planted in the original sequence. To permit estimating profitability of the 4-yr rotation for 2001, the profit for SAF was estimated based on its historic yield relationship following YM.

Although WW–SF was not included in the replicated experiment, economic comparison of this traditional system to the experiment's no-till annual spring crop rotations was accomplished by conducting a multiyear grain yield survey of 10 WW–SF farmers within a 7-km radius of the experiment site. A one-page mailed questionnaire with telephone follow-up as necessary was used. The sample size of 10 farmers represents 53% of the original mailing to 19 farmers. The 10 neighboring farmers had climate and soils similar to the experiment site. Of the 10 participating farmers, one reported on three different fields, with varying yields. This farmer's data were added independently, increasing the sample size to 12.

The survey approach permitted observing variation of WW yields over time and over farmers as well as deriving average yields. Reported grain yields from the survey were divided into top, middle, and lower thirds to permit comparisons of each group to spring crop rotations from the experiment. Typical fixed and variable costs for WW–SF were computed from standard enterprise budgets developed for WW–SF for Adams County, WA (Hinman and Esser, 1999).

	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Variation in annual precipitation had considerable effect on spring crop yields (Table 2). Crop-year (1 Sept. to 31 Aug.) precipitation was 515, 282, 200, 231, and 203 mm for 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, respectively. The 5-yr average annual precipitation of 286 mm was near the long-term average of 292 mm. Substantial variation in year-to-year precipitation is common in the region and underscores the importance of several years of data to accurately compare cropping systems. Yellow mustard exhibited relatively high yield variation, with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.58 vs. a mean of 0.61 Mg ha^–1. Grain yield of YM ranged from 1.6 Mg ha^–1 in 1997 to 0.12 Mg ha^–1 in 1999 (Table 2). Safflower displayed relatively low yield variation with a SD of 0.38 and a mean of 1.00 Mg ha^–1. We theorize that SAF experienced lower yield variation because it extracted soil water below the 150-cm depth (data not shown) with its long taproot. Although deep overwinter soil water recharge is rare, recharge occurred to a depth of 180 cm or greater during the wet 1996–1997 winter (data not shown). Spring wheat does not extract soil water below 150 cm; thus, residual water below 150 cm was available to SAF during the first 3 yr of the study.

Results of a 1997–2001 WW–SF farmer survey are shown in Table 3. Yields of WW–SF were obtained from farms within a 7-km radius of the study site for the spring crop yields reported in Table 2. Soils of the surveyed farms are similar in texture and depth to the study site and are all classified as Ritzville silt loam (Lenfesty, 1967). The weather station at the experiment site was located at the center of the 7-km radius and is considered representative of the surveyed farms. Like the spring crop yields in Table 2, WW yield varied with annual precipitation. Highest yields were recorded in 1997 when precipitation was almost double the long-run average, and lowest yields occurred during the 2001 drought year. Over all farms and years, reported WW yields averaged 3.82 Mg ha^–1 with a SD of 0.98 Mg ha^–1. Average 5-yr yields ranged from 3.36 (Farmer 5) to 4.55 (Farmer 4) Mg ha^–1. Yield variation among farms is likely due to management and possibly minor differences in microclimate. Annual average WW yields ranged from 2.39 to 4.86 Mg ha^–1. Comparison of Tables 2 and 3 reveal somewhat less annual yield variation over 1997–2001 in surveyed WW–SF yields than in the experiment's spring crop yields. Dividing the WW–SF farmers into upper, middle, and lower thirds gives average yields of 4.41, 3.78, and 3.27 Mg ha^–1. Standard deviation ranged from 0.87 to 0.99 Mg ha^–1 and is positively correlated with average yields.

The WW–SF system also was the least risky rotation over 1997–2001 with a SD of $36.97 ha^–1 yr^–1 compared with $90.69 for SAF–YM–SW–SW, $100.97 for continuous SW, and $103.02 for SW–SB (Table 4). Farmers and lenders generally prefer cropping systems that sustain profitability and reduce economic risk. Results show that during 1997–2001 WW–SF had this advantage.

Low relative variance of SAF–YM–SW–SW is attributable to consistently negative, but slightly more uniform, net returns throughout the study period. In contrast, the other two spring crop rotations enjoyed positive net returns in 1997, 1998, and 2000 (Table 4). Yields in Table 2 drive the annual profit variation in Table 4. Drought-depressed yields in 1999 and 2001 decreased average profitability and increased the economic riskiness of the three spring crop rotations (Table 4). While net returns for WW–SF were not immune from the 1999 and 2001 drought years, this rotation was able to withstand yield reductions to a greater extent compared with annual spring cropping, especially in 1999.

The upper, middle, and lower thirds of the WW–SF survey showed average net returns over total costs per rotational hectare per year of $45.75, $19.99, and –$1.21, respectively. Under the possibly untenable assumption that continuous SW yields could hold at average levels on the lower third of WW–SF farms, then continuous SW would exceed the estimated average profitability of WW–SF by $13.32 ha^–1 yr^–1 [$12.11 – (–$1.21)] on these farms.

	SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
The most promising result of this study was that continuous annual no-till SW was economically competitive with traditional WW–SF. Results may be somewhat robust considering that the 5-yr study contained 4 yr of below-average precipitation and two major drought years. Two previous multiyear studies in east-central Washington showed that no-till HRSW lagged WW–SF by $113 ha^–1 yr^–1.

Continuous no-till SW showed considerably more economic risk compared with WW–SF. Future production and breeding research should focus on improving the yield stability of spring wheat under variable precipitation. Targeted agricultural policies such as green payments for no-till farming in areas vulnerable to wind erosion could also help tip the scale toward adoption of these soil-conserving cropping systems. Subsidized crop insurance for farmers adopting no-till could also reduce their economic risk. A negative 116.53 ha^–1 net return for SW, as evidenced in 2001, is an unacceptable risk for most farmers, even if long-run average prospects are positive.

Given the potential for continuous annual no-till SW to markedly reduce dust emissions compared with WW–SF, the equivalent profitability of these two systems provides the first reported potential win-win solution for no-till farmers and the environment in the low-precipitation zone of the inland PNW.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of Ron Jirava on whose farm the research was conducted. Appreciation is extended to Washington State University agricultural research technicians Harry Schafer and Steve Schofstoll for their excellent support. Funding for the research was provided by the Columbia Plateau Wind Erosion/Air Quality Project and the Solutions to Economic and Environmental Problems (STEEP) Project.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 

• [CTIC] Conservation Tillage Information Center. 2001. Crop residue management statistics [Online]. Available at http://www.ctic.purdue.edu (verified 7 Oct. 2003). CTIC, West Lafayette, IN.
• Hinman, H.R., and A.E. Esser. 1999. 1999 enterprise budgets for summer fallow/winter wheat rotations and hard red spring wheat annual cropping, Adams County, Washington State. Bull. 1883. Washington State Univ. Coop. Ext., Pullman.
• Janosky, J.S., D.L. Young, and W.F. Schillinger. 2002. Economics of conservation tillage in a wheat–fallow rotation. Agron. J. 94:527–531.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Juergens, L.A., D.L. Young, R.D. Roe, and H.H. Wang. 2001. Preliminary farmer survey results on the economics of the transition to no-till. p. 141–142. In Tech. Rep. 01-4. Dep. of Crop and Soil Sci., Washington State Univ., Pullman.
• Leggett, G.E., R.E. Ramig, L.C. Johnson, and T.W. Massee. 1974. Summer fallow in the Northwest. p. 110–135. In Summer fallow in the United States. Conserv. Res. Rep. 17. USDA-ARS, Washington, DC.
• Lenfesty, C.D. 1967. Soil survey of Adams County, Washington. USDA-SCS, Washington, DC.
• Papendick, R.I. 1996. Farming systems and conservation needs in the northwest wheat region. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 11:52–57.
• Papendick, R.I., and J.F. Parr. 1996. Introduction: Improving the sustainability of dryland farming systems. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 11:50–51.
• Schillinger, W.F. 2001. Minimum and delayed conservation tillage for wheat–fallow farming. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65:1203–1209.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Smiley, R.W., A.G. Ogg, Jr., and R.J. Cook. 1992. Influence of glyphosate on severity of Rhizoctonia root rot and growth and yield of barley. Plant Dis. 76:937–942.
• Smith, E.G., and D.L. Young. 2000. Requiem for fallow in western North America. Choices. 1st quarter, p. 24–25.
• Upadhyay, B.M., D.L. Young, H.H. Wang, and P.R. Wandschneider. 2003. How do farmers who adopt multiple conservation practices differ from their neighbors? Am. J. Altern. Agric. 18:27–36.
• Washington Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. Washington agricultural statistics. Washington Agric. Stat. Serv., Olympia, WA.
• Withers, R., S. Berglund, A. Esser, J. Brown, and B. Smathers. 1999. Economics of yellow mustard in the Pacific Northwest. Bull. 826. Univ. of Idaho Coop. Ext., Moscow.
• Young, D.L. 2002a. Economics of wind erosion control. p. 90–101. In Northwest Columbia Plateau wind erosion/air quality project 2002 annual report. Washington State Univ., Pullman.
• Young, D.L. 2002b. Economics of wind erosion control practices: Annual Report Ralston Project 2002. Washington State Univ., Pullman.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. L. Nail, D. L. Young, and W. F. Schillinger Government Subsidies and Crop Insurance Effects on the Economics of Conservation Cropping Systems in Eastern Washington Agron. J., April 4, 2007; 99(3): 614 - 620. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. F. Schillinger Tillage Method and Sowing Rate Relations for Dryland Spring Wheat, Barley, and Oat Crop Sci., October 27, 2005; 45(6): 2636 - 2643. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. F. Schillinger and D. L. Young Cropping Systems Research in the World's Driest Rainfed Wheat Region Agron. J., July 1, 2004; 96(4): 1182 - 1187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (10) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Juergens, L. A. Articles by Hinman, H. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Juergens, L. A. Articles by Hinman, H. R. Agricola Articles by Juergens, L. A. Articles by Hinman, H. R. Related Collections Economics Dryland Cropping Systems Wheat Other Oil Crops Soil Conservation